Olivia Hölsä, Kaisa Teittinen, Anna Anttalainen, Liisa Ukkola-Vuoti, Milla Summanen, Kalle E Mattila
{"title":"2010年至2021年芬兰西南部晚期肾细胞癌系统治疗进展的观察研究。","authors":"Olivia Hölsä, Kaisa Teittinen, Anna Anttalainen, Liisa Ukkola-Vuoti, Milla Summanen, Kalle E Mattila","doi":"10.1177/17562872231206243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Novel receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) during the past decade. However, the adoption of novel treatments into clinical practice has been unknown in Finland.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate the use of systemic treatments and treatment outcomes of aRCC patients in Southwest Finland during 2010-2021.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Clinical characteristics, treatments for aRCC, healthcare resource utilization, and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. Patients were stratified using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 1112 RCC patients were identified, 336 (30%) patients presented with aRCC, and 57% of them (<i>n</i> = 191) had received systemic treatment. Pre-2018, sunitinib (79%) was the most common first-line treatment, and pazopanib (17%), axitinib (17%), and cabozantinib (5%) were frequently used in the second-line. Post-2018, sunitinib (52%), cabozantinib (31%), and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (10%) were most commonly used in the first-line, and cabozantinib (23%) in the second-line. Median OS for patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk were 61.9, 28.6, and 8.1 months, respectively. A total of 73%, 74%, and 35% of the patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk had received second-line systemic treatment. In poor-risk patients, the number of hospital inpatient days was twofold higher compared to intermediate and fourfold higher compared to favorable-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>New treatment options were readily adopted into routine clinical practice after becoming reimbursed in Finland. OS and the need for hospitalization depended significantly on the IMDC risk category. Upfront combination treatments are warranted for poor-risk patients as the proportion of patients receiving second-line treatment is low.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Clinical trial identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05363072.</p>","PeriodicalId":23010,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","volume":"15 ","pages":"17562872231206243"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10629305/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observational study on the evolution of systemic treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Southwest Finland between 2010 and 2021.\",\"authors\":\"Olivia Hölsä, Kaisa Teittinen, Anna Anttalainen, Liisa Ukkola-Vuoti, Milla Summanen, Kalle E Mattila\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562872231206243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Novel receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) during the past decade. However, the adoption of novel treatments into clinical practice has been unknown in Finland.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate the use of systemic treatments and treatment outcomes of aRCC patients in Southwest Finland during 2010-2021.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Clinical characteristics, treatments for aRCC, healthcare resource utilization, and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. Patients were stratified using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 1112 RCC patients were identified, 336 (30%) patients presented with aRCC, and 57% of them (<i>n</i> = 191) had received systemic treatment. Pre-2018, sunitinib (79%) was the most common first-line treatment, and pazopanib (17%), axitinib (17%), and cabozantinib (5%) were frequently used in the second-line. Post-2018, sunitinib (52%), cabozantinib (31%), and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (10%) were most commonly used in the first-line, and cabozantinib (23%) in the second-line. Median OS for patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk were 61.9, 28.6, and 8.1 months, respectively. A total of 73%, 74%, and 35% of the patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk had received second-line systemic treatment. In poor-risk patients, the number of hospital inpatient days was twofold higher compared to intermediate and fourfold higher compared to favorable-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>New treatment options were readily adopted into routine clinical practice after becoming reimbursed in Finland. OS and the need for hospitalization depended significantly on the IMDC risk category. Upfront combination treatments are warranted for poor-risk patients as the proportion of patients receiving second-line treatment is low.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Clinical trial identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05363072.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Urology\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"17562872231206243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10629305/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231206243\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231206243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observational study on the evolution of systemic treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Southwest Finland between 2010 and 2021.
Background: Novel receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) during the past decade. However, the adoption of novel treatments into clinical practice has been unknown in Finland.
Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the use of systemic treatments and treatment outcomes of aRCC patients in Southwest Finland during 2010-2021.
Design and methods: Clinical characteristics, treatments for aRCC, healthcare resource utilization, and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. Patients were stratified using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification.
Results: In total, 1112 RCC patients were identified, 336 (30%) patients presented with aRCC, and 57% of them (n = 191) had received systemic treatment. Pre-2018, sunitinib (79%) was the most common first-line treatment, and pazopanib (17%), axitinib (17%), and cabozantinib (5%) were frequently used in the second-line. Post-2018, sunitinib (52%), cabozantinib (31%), and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (10%) were most commonly used in the first-line, and cabozantinib (23%) in the second-line. Median OS for patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk were 61.9, 28.6, and 8.1 months, respectively. A total of 73%, 74%, and 35% of the patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk had received second-line systemic treatment. In poor-risk patients, the number of hospital inpatient days was twofold higher compared to intermediate and fourfold higher compared to favorable-risk patients.
Conclusion: New treatment options were readily adopted into routine clinical practice after becoming reimbursed in Finland. OS and the need for hospitalization depended significantly on the IMDC risk category. Upfront combination treatments are warranted for poor-risk patients as the proportion of patients receiving second-line treatment is low.
期刊介绍：
Therapeutic Advances in Urology delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of urology.
The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in urology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest across all areas of urology, including treatment of urological disorders, with a focus on emerging pharmacological therapies.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
